Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful nuance that only the delta is re-approved, but it says nothing about what happens to already-approved tasks, whether prior approvals are invalidated, or who may amend.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb+resource leads and the mechanics follow. Efficient, though the colon-list is compact to the point of being terse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs the description to carry more weight than this. The undefined shape of the 'add' items and the absence of any approval/permission detail leave the agent under-informed about how to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across all three required parameters. The description hints that 'add' takes tasks, but the nested array-of-objects structure — the core of the tool — is entirely undocumented, and plan_id and proposed_by get no semantic treatment at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('amend') and resource ('an agreed plan') with the scoping condition 'during execution', which distinguishes it from propose_plan (initial creation) and approve_plan (approval). The colon-list 'add tasks, bump a revision, re-approve only the delta' clarifies scope, though it reads as shorthand rather than a full statement of what an amendment entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'During execution' implies the timing relative to propose_plan/approve_plan, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the mid-flight counterpart to propose_plan.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.